Also, I don't hate Sarkeesian, it's more like I feel that she's taking shady short cuts, doing wrong for the sake of good, even if the wrong is minor. Perhaps it was inspired by some sort of utilitarian thinking, I don't know.

Also, I don't see anyone trying to prove why she wouldn't victim play; as I see it, there's more plenty of motive for her to have done so, her goals were not purely altruistic._________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

So if it hasn't been proven true, then you're only conjecturing that she did something. You've been talking like it was a proven thing, though, which is bizarre._________________[Stripeypants has enabled lurk mode.]

So if it hasn't been proven true, then you're only conjecturing that she did something. You've been talking like it was a proven thing, though, which is bizarre.

No, I'm applying Occam's razor to determine what seems most likely. Purposeful action on her part (or by a confederate) to further her own goals seems WAY MORE LIKELY than a super perfectly timed coincidental posting on 4chan by some random person. Saying she wanted death threats is far fetched, saying she acted manipulatively isn't._________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

Occam's Razor applies to the simplest explanation. A conspiracy is not simple. People write hateful thinks about Anita Sarkeesian all the time, so I don't see why it is farfetched that someone could have done so at an 'opportune' time._________________[Stripeypants has enabled lurk mode.]

Looks like two people is required for a conspiracy; but you are still saying that Sarkeesian enacted a convoluted plot. The only evidence you've presented for this is that she could have - and therefore must have._________________[Stripeypants has enabled lurk mode.]

This is like saying a person who walked down an alleyway and got raped should have known how rapey alleyways are, and more to the point they had reason means and opportunity to get a huge civil payout from a rapist so it all fits the profile of an intentionally goaded action

Or how about that Levar Burton paid off the only person who wrote an awful article about his revival of Reading Rainbow - because he knew that no one would say anything bad about it, and the only way to net more profit was to stir up anger instead of just nostalgia.

This is not the only time that someone has written something bad about a woman speaking her mind, or that a group of people have harassed a woman who was speaking her mind. Which is why it is bizarre that Darqcyde's only conclusion is: She must have engineered the whole thing!_________________[Stripeypants has enabled lurk mode.]

I will respond to the above stuff, but I don't want to rush and half-ass it, so it's going to have to wait for the week end.

************
************
************

Quote:

While most students at Columbia University will spend the first day of classes carrying backpacks and books, Emma Sulkowicz will start her semester on Tuesday with a far heavier burden. The senior plans on carrying an extra-long, twin-size mattress across the quad and through each New York City building – to every class, every day – until the man she says raped her moves off campus.

“I was raped in my own bed,” Sulkowicz told me the other day, as she was gearing up to head back to school in this, the year American colleges are finally, supposedly, ready to do something about sexual assault. “I could have taken my pillow, but I want people to see how it weighs down a person to be ignored by the school administration and harassed by police.”

Looks like two people is required for a conspiracy; but you are still saying that Sarkeesian enacted a convoluted plot. The only evidence you've presented for this is that she could have - and therefore must have.

Ok, so first off, it's not convoluted. Look at risk/benefit. The risk of her getting caught was virtually nil. Posting on 4chan, turning off youtube comments, that all takes about five minutes, tops. Anytime that anyone, regardless of who they are or what their cause is, has something to gain from being a victim there should be questions about 'victim play'. This doesn't make them not a victim, nor should it marginalize nor lessen their status as a victim.

From my moral foundations and upbringing, Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, and while no longer practicing that faith, I've taken away an import belief: good works do not a good person make. A person can do all the good in the world and not be a good person. Susan G. Komen definitely had cancer, and definitely raises money for research, but if you try to raise money using the trademarked 'for the cure', she will sick her legal goons on you: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/komen-foundation-charities-cure_n_793176.html This makes her not a good person. Sarkeesian is hardly a shitbag like that, but her overall actions (who's gameplay footage is that?) make me suspicious and distrustful of her. There's no way to know this for sure, but there is never only one right way to interpret a person's actions. Taken holistically, different people are going to reach different conclusions--look at the debates over in the Sinfest subforum to see how differently people can interpret the same thing.

Most importantly, is Anita method of addressing criticism. She doesn't seem to engage her legitimate critics as far as I can tell-- she seems too busy "feeding the trolls cherries" as it were. The most hateful and hurtful attacks against her are brought to the forefront, which she then positions as further proof of her point, which then garners her more support and more hate, which she displays again as more proof, which then gets her more support and mote hate, ad infinitum.

As I see it, progress is made through conversations, not monologues and diatribes. Anita seem overall unwilling to engage in conversation.